[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: KDE vs. GNOME on F10

Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 11:05 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
For me, that's easy. I don't want updates that the packagers don't consider "stable". It sure sounds to me like Christopher feels the same way.

I am willing to take the latest upstream builds because the maintainer considers them "safe". I am not willing to use rawhide because it's considered a free-for-all. (I don't use updates-testing either, which IMO if I slurped everything relevant from updates-testing, would be about the same thing as using rawhide.)

So if rawhide had an updates-testing like repo, you wouldn't mind using

If that put an end to stuff like 'sorry, that last glibc rpm bricks your system if you have the misfortune of installing it'... maybe. As I said, right now my "line" is "packages that the maintainers consider stable". If "rawhide" became that (and some new "rawhide-testing" or such for the current free-for-all), then I suppose I might use it. I'd also ask how that differs in any significant way from a rolling release.

To be clear, 1. I would be in favor of a rolling release system, and 2. development /needs/ a "free for all" environment. So please don't take the above as being in any way opposed to such an environment existing... just so long as I can opt out of it ;-).

Oh, and on a related note, it would be really helpful if it was possible to enable updates-testing only for certain packages (and when needed, dependencies thereof) on a permanent whitelist basis.

Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
Thank you for reading all the way to this .sig. You may stop reading now. Really. It is safe to stop. There is no more content. Why are you still reading?

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]